Carson critic reveals his own problem with intolerance

I found Dan Rodricks' column on Dr. Ben Carson jaded and biased ("Ben Carson's biblically based conservatism," March 31).

Mr. Rodricks accused Dr. Carson of making homophobic remarks, but it was just his opinion that the remarks were homophobic in nature. Mr. Rodricks should write a column every week denouncing those who oppose gay marriage for their anti-gay bigotry.

I believe that homosexuals should have the same rights as any other citizen. However, if they need to legalize their actions they should do so and call it something other than marriage.

Centuries of civil and religious ceremony lie behind the relationship between a man and woman who chose to join together, and it is called a marriage. Just because that isn't politically correct shouldn't make us change the definition to suit those who practice homosexuality.

If you look up marriage in the dictionary it is specific in definition and not arbitrary. To include homosexuals under the same centuries old identification denigrates the past and current relationship of millions of persons in a marital union.

It is not homophobic to have this opinion or belief. Legalizing gay unions and calling the union a marriage will flaunt cultural mores and the sensibility of millions of people. It is as ridiculous as calling one of the partners in such a relationship the wife, if both partners are male; or calling one of the partners in such a relationship the husband if both partners are female.

Additionally, Mr. Rodricks chose to discuss other concerns that Dr. Carson has expressed. Mr. Rodricks obviously disagree with Dr. Carson on a range of subjects. But when he implies that all those who agree with Dr. Carson are to be disregarded, one wonders who set him up as an authority on anything?

If anything, Mr. Rodricks' column reflects the views of a man who has no tolerance for any point of view other than his own.